R

E
V
I
E
W

C
O
P
Y
N
O
T

F
O
R

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
Observation of electron-antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay
F. P. An,
1
J. Z. Bai,
1
A. B. Balantekin,
2
H. R. Band,
2
D. Beavis,
3
W. Beriguete,
3
M. Bishai,
3
S. Blyth,
4
R. L. Brown,
3
G. F. Cao,
1
J. Cao,
1
R. Carr,
5
W. T. Chan,
3
J. F. Chang,
1
Y. Chang,
4
C. Chasman,
3
H. S. Chen,
1
H. Y. Chen,
6
S. J. Chen,
7
S. M. Chen,
8
X. C. Chen,
9
X. H. Chen,
1
X. S. Chen,
1
Y. Chen,
10
Y. X. Chen,
11
J. J. Cherwinka,
2
M. C. Chu,
9
J. P. Cummings,
12
Z. Y. Deng,
1
Y. Y. Ding,
1
M. V. Diwan,
3
L. Dong,
1
E. Draeger,
13
X. F. Du,
1
D. A. Dwyer,
5
W. R. Edwards,
14
S. R. Ely,
15
S. D. Fang,
7
J. Y. Fu,
1
Z. W. Fu,
7
L. Q. Ge,
16
V. Ghazikhanian,
17
R. L. Gill,
3
J. Goett,
18
M. Gonchar,
19
G. H. Gong,
8
H. Gong,
8
Y. A. Gornushkin,
19
L. S. Greenler,
2
W. Q. Gu,
20
M. Y. Guan,
1
X. H. Guo,
21
R. W. Hackenburg,
3
R. L. Hahn,
3
S. Hans,
3
M. He,
1
Q. He,
22
W. S. He,
23
K. M. Heeger,
2
Y. K. Heng,
1
P. Hinrichs,
2
T. H. Ho,
23
Y. K. Hor,
24
Y. B. Hsiung,
23
B. Z. Hu,
6
T. Hu,
1
T. Hu,
21
H. X. Huang,
25
H. Z. Huang,
17
P. W. Huang,
7
X. Huang,
26
X. T. Huang,
27
P. Huber,
24
Z. Isvan,
3
D. E. Jaffe,
3
S. Jetter,
1
X. L. Ji,
1
X. P. Ji,
28
H. J. Jiang,
16
W. Q. Jiang,
1
J. B. Jiao,
27
R. A. Johnson,
29
L. Kang,
30
S. H. Kettell,
3
M. Kramer,
14, 31
K. K. Kwan,
9
M. W. Kwok,
9
T. Kwok,
32
C. Y. Lai,
23
W. C. Lai,
16
W. H. Lai,
6
K. Lau,
26
L. Lebanowski,
26
J. Lee,
14
M. K. P. Lee,
32
R. Leitner,
33
J. K. C. Leung,
32
K. Y. Leung,
32
C. A. Lewis,
2
B. Li,
1
F. Li,
1
G. S. Li,
20
J. Li,
1
Q. J. Li,
1
S. F. Li,
30
W. D. Li,
1
X. B. Li,
1
X. N. Li,
1
X. Q. Li,
28
Y. Li,
30
Z. B. Li,
34
H. Liang,
35
J. Liang,
1
C. J. Lin,
14
G. L. Lin,
6
S. K. Lin,
26
S. X. Lin,
30
Y. C. Lin,
16, 9, 32, 8
J. J. Ling,
3
J. M. Link,
24
L. Littenberg,
3
B. R. Littlejohn,
2
B. J. Liu,
9, 1, 32
C. Liu,
1
D. W. Liu,
15
H. Liu,
32
J. C. Liu,
1
J. L. Liu,
20
S. Liu,
14
X. Liu,
1,
Y. B. Liu,
1
C. Lu,
22
H. Q. Lu,
1
A. Luk,
9
K. B. Luk,
14, 31
T. Luo,
1
X. L. Luo,
1
L. H. Ma,
1
Q. M. Ma,
1
X. B. Ma,
11
X. Y. Ma,
1
Y. Q. Ma,
1
B. Mayes,
26
K. T. McDonald,
22
M. C. McFarlane,
2
R. D. McKeown,
5, 36
Y. Meng,
24
D. Mohapatra,
24
J. E. Morgan,
24
Y. Nakajima,
14
J. Napolitano,
18
D. Naumov,
19
I. Nemchenok,
19
C. Newsom,
26
H. Y. Ngai,
32
W. K. Ngai,
15
Y. B. Nie,
25
Z. Ning,
1
J. P. Ochoa-Ricoux,
14
A. Olshevski,
19
A. Pagac,
2
S. Patton,
14
C. Pearson,
3
V. Pec,
33
J. C. Peng,
15
L. E. Piilonen,
24
L. Pinsky,
26
C. S. J. Pun,
32
F. Z. Qi,
1
M. Qi,
7
X. Qian,
5
N. Raper,
18
R. Rosero,
3
B. Roskovec,
33
X. C. Ruan,
25
B. Seilhan,
13
B. B. Shao,
8
K. Shih,
9
H. Steiner,
14, 31
P. Stoler,
18
G. X. Sun,
1
J. L. Sun,
37
Y. H. Tam,
9
H. K. Tanaka,
3
X. Tang,
1
H. Themann,
3
Y. Torun,
13
S. Trentalange,
17
O. Tsai,
17
K. V. Tsang,
14
R. H. M. Tsang,
5
C. Tull,
14
B. Viren,
3
S. Virostek,
14
V. Vorobel,
33
C. H. Wang,
4
L. S. Wang,
1
L. Y. Wang,
1
L. Z. Wang,
11
M. Wang,
27, 1
N. Y. Wang,
21
R. G. Wang,
1
T. Wang,
1
W. Wang,
36, 5
X. Wang,
8
X. Wang,
1
Y. F. Wang,
1
Z. Wang,
8, 3
Z. Wang,
1
Z. M. Wang,
1
D. M. Webber,
2
Y. D. Wei,
30
L. J. Wen,
1
D. L. Wenman,
2
K. Whisnant,
38
C. G. White,
13
L. Whitehead,
26
C. A. Whitten Jr.,
17,
J. Wilhelmi,
18
T. Wise,
2
H. C. Wong,
32
H. L. H. Wong,
31
J. Wong,
9
E. T. Worcester,
3
F. F. Wu,
5
Q. Wu,
27, 13
D. M. Xia,
1
S. T. Xiang,
35
Q. Xiao,
2
Z. Z. Xing,
1
G. Xu,
26
J. Xu,
9
J. Xu,
21
J. L. Xu,
1
W. Xu,
17
Y. Xu,
28
T. Xue,
8
C. G. Yang,
1
L. Yang,
30
M. Ye,
1
M. Yeh,
3
Y. S. Yeh,
6
K. Yip,
3
B. L. Young,
38
Z. Y. Yu,
1
L. Zhan,
1
C. Zhang,
3
F. H. Zhang,
1
J. W. Zhang,
1
Q. M. Zhang,
1
K. Zhang,
3
Q. X. Zhang,
16
S. H. Zhang,
1
Y. C. Zhang,
35
Y. H. Zhang,
1
Y. X. Zhang,
37
Z. J. Zhang,
30
Z. P. Zhang,
35
Z. Y. Zhang,
1
J. Zhao,
1
Q. W. Zhao,
1
Y. B. Zhao,
1
L. Zheng,
35
W. L. Zhong,
14
L. Zhou,
1
Z. Y. Zhou,
25
H. L. Zhuang,
1
and J. H. Zou
1
(The Daya Bay Collaboration)
1
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing
2
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
3
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY
4
National United University, Miao-Li
5
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
6
Institute of Physics, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu
7
Nanjing University, Nanjing
8
Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing
9
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
10
Shenzhen Univeristy, Shen Zhen
11
North China Electric Power University, Beijing
12
Siena College, Loudonville, NY
13
Department of Physics, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL
14
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
15
Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
16
Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu
17
University of California, Los Angeles, CA
18
Department of Physics, Applied Physics, and Astronomy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
19
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow Region
20
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai
21
Beijing Normal University, Beijing
22
Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
23
Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei
24
Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
2
25
China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing
26
Department of Physics, University of Houston, Houston, TX
27
Shandong University, Jinan
28
School of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin
29
Department of Physics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
30
Dongguan Institute of Technology, Dongguan
31
Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA
32
Department of Physics, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
33
Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Prague
34
Sun Yat-Sen (Zhongshan) University, Guangzhou
35
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei
36
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA
37
China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, Shenzhen
38
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
(Dated: March 7, 2012)
The Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment has measured a non-zero value for the neutrino mixing angle 13
with a signicance of 5.2 standard deviations. Antineutrinos from six 2.9 GW
th
reactors were detected in six
antineutrino detectors deployed in two near (ux-weighted baseline 470 m and 576 m) and one far (1648 m)
underground experimental halls. With 55 days of data, 10416 (80376) electron antineutrino candidates were
detected at the far hall (near halls). The ratio of the observed to expected number of antineutrinos at the far hall
is R = 0.940 0.011(stat) 0.004(syst). A rate-only analysis nds sin
2
213 = 0.092 0.016(stat)
0.005(syst) in a three-neutrino framework.
PACS numbers: 14.60.Pq, 29.40.Mc, 28.50.Hw, 13.15.+g
Keywords: neutrino oscillation, neutrino mixing, reactor, Daya Bay
It is well established that the avor of a neutrino oscil-
lates with time. Neutrino oscillations can be described by
the three mixing angles (
12
,
23
, and
13
) and a phase
of the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix, and two
mass-squared differences (m
2
31
and m
2
21
) [1, 2]. Of these
mixing angles,
13
is the least known. The Chooz experi-
ment obtained a 90%-condence-level upper limit of 0.17 for
sin
2
2
13
[3]. Recently, results from T2K [4], MINOS [5] and
Double Chooz [6] have indicated that
13
could be non-zero.
In this paper, we present the observation of a non-zero value
for
13
.
For reactor-based experiments, an unambiguous determina-
tion of
13
can be extracted via the survival probability of the
electron antineutrino
e
at short distances from the reactors,
P
sur
1 sin
2
2
13
sin
2
(1.267m
2
31
L/E) , (1)
where m
2
31
can be approximated by m
2
32
= (2.32
+0.12
0.08
)
10
3
eV
2
[7], E is the
e
energy in MeV and L is the distance
in meters between the
e
source and the detector (baseline).
The near-far arrangement of antineutrino detectors (ADs),
as illustrated in Fig. 1, allows for a relative measurement by
comparing the observed
e
rates at various baselines. With
functionally identical ADs, the relative rate is independent of
correlated uncertainties and uncorrelated reactor uncertainties
are minimized.
A detailed description of the Daya Bay experiment can be
found in [8, 9]. Here, only the apparatus relevant to this anal-
ysis will be highlighted. The six pressurized water reactors
are grouped into three pairs with each pair referred to as a
nuclear power plant (NPP). The maximum thermal power of
each reactor is 2.9 GW
th
. Three underground experimental
halls (EHs) are connected with horizontal tunnels. Two ADs
are located in EH1 and one in EH2 (the near halls). Three ADs
are positioned near the oscillation maximum in the far hall,
EH3. The overburden in equivalent meters of water (m.w.e.),
the simulated muon rate and average muon energy, and aver-
age distance to the reactor pairs are listed in Table I.
FIG. 1. Layout of the Daya Bay experiment. The dots represent
reactors, labeled as D1, D2, L1, L2, L3 and L4. Six ADs, AD1
AD6, are installed in three EHs.
As shown in Fig. 2, the ADs in each EH are shielded with
>2.5 m of high-purity water against ambient radiation in all
directions. Each water pool is segmented into inner and outer
water shields (IWS and OWS) and instrumented with photo-
multiplier tubes (PMTs) to function as Cherenkov-radiation
detectors whose data were used by ofine software to remove
spallation neutrons and other cosmogenic backgrounds. The
3
Overburden R E D1,2 L1,2 L3,4
EH1 250 1.27 57 364 857 1307
EH2 265 0.95 58 1348 480 528
EH3 860 0.056 137 1912 1540 1548
TABLE I. Overburden (m.w.e.), muon rate R (Hz/m
2
), and average
muon energy E (GeV) of the three EHs, and the distances (m) to
the reactor pairs.
detection efciency for long-track muons is >99.7% [8].
The
e
is detected via the inverse -decay (IBD) reaction,

e
+ p e
+
+ n, in a Gadolinium-doped liquid scintillator
(Gd-LS) [10, 11]. The coincidence of the prompt scintillation
from the e
+
and the delayed neutron capture on Gd provides
a distinctive
e
signature.
Each AD consists of a cylindrical, 5-m diameter stainless
steel vessel (SSV) that houses two nested, UV-transparent
acrylic cylindrical vessels. A 3.1-m diameter inner acrylic
vessel (IAV) holds 20-t of Gd-LS (target). It is surrounded by
a region with 20-t of liquid scintillator (LS) inside a 4-mdiam-
eter outer acrylic vessel (OAV). Between the SSV and OAV,
37-t of mineral oil (MO) shields the LS and Gd-LS from ra-
dioactivity. IBD interactions are detected by 192 Hamamatsu
R5912 PMTs. A black radial shield and specular reectors are
installed on the vertical detector walls and above and below
the LS volume, respectively. Gd-LS and LS are prepared and
lled into ADs systematically to ensure all ADs are function-
ally identical [8]. Three automated calibration units (ACUs)
mounted on the SSV lid allow for remote deployment of an
LED, a
68
Ge source, and a combined source of
241
Am-
13
C
and
60
Co into the Gd-LS and LS liquid volumes along three
vertical axes.
FIG. 2. Schematic diagram of the Daya Bay detectors.
The results are based on data taken from24 December 2011
to 17 February 2012. A blind analysis strategy was adopted,
with the baselines, the thermal power histories of the cores,
and the target masses of the ADs hidden until the analy-
ses were frozen. Triggers were formed from the number of
PMTs with signals above a 0.25 photoelectron (pe) thresh-
old (NHIT) or the charge-sum of the over-threshold PMTs
(ESUM). The AD triggers were NHIT > 45 or ESUM 65
pe. The trigger rate per AD was <280 Hz with a negligible
trigger inefciency for IBD candidates. The data consist of
charge and timing information for each PMT, and were accu-
mulated independently for each detector. To remove system-
atic effects due to reactor ux uctuations, only data sets with
all detectors in operation were used.
The energy of each trigger in an AD was reconstructed
based on the total pe collected by the PMTs. The energy cal-
ibration constant, 163 pe/MeV for all ADs, was determined
by setting the energy peak of the
60
Co source deployed at the
AD center to 2.506 MeV. Vertex reconstruction was based
on center-of-charge (COC), dened as the charge-weighted-
mean of the coordinates of all PMTs. The mapping from
COC to vertex was done by analytic corrections determined
using data collected with
60
Co sources deployed at various
points within the AD. A vertex-dependent correction to en-
ergy was applied equally to all ADs to correct for geomet-
rical effects. A constant scale factor was also applied that
accounted for the difference in energy scale due to the non-
linear response of the AD as determined by the
60
Co and Am-
C sources at the detector center. An independent energy cali-
bration that utilized the peak of the spallation-neutron capture
on gadolinium (nGd) to set the energy scale and templates
derived from Monte Carlo simulations (MC) for vertex recon-
struction, gave consistent performance [8]. The energy reso-
lution was (7.5/
_
E(MeV) + 0.9)% for all 6 ADs.
IWS and OWS triggers with NHIT > 12 were classied
as WS muon candidates or
WS
. Events in an AD within
2 s of a
WS
with energy >20 MeV and >2.5 GeV were
classied as muons (
AD
) and showering muons (
sh
), re-
spectively, for vetoing purposes. An instrumental background
due to spontaneous light emission from a PMT, denoted as a
asher, was rejected efciently [8].
IBD events were selected with the following criteria: 0.7<
E
p
< 12.0 MeV, 6.0 < E
d
< 12.0 MeV, 1 < t < 200 s,
the prompt-delayed pair was vetoed by muons if t
d
t
WS
<
600 s, t
d
t
AD
<1000 s or t
d
t

sh
<1 s, and a mul-
tiplicity cut that requires no additional >0.7 MeV trigger in
the time range (t
p
200s, t
d
+ 200s), where E
p
(E
d
) is
the prompt (delayed) energy and t = t
d
t
p
is the time dif-
ference between the prompt and delayed signals. Statistically
consistent performance was achieved by an independent anal-
ysis that used different energy reconstruction, muon veto, and
multiplicity cuts.
The inefciency of the muon veto for selecting IBD events
(1

) was calculated by integrating the vetoed time of each

muon with temporal overlaps taken into account. Inefciency
due to the multiplicity selection (1
m
) was calculated by
considering the probability that a randomsignal occurred near
an IBD in time. The average values of

m
are given for
each AD in Table II.
We considered the following kinds of background: acciden-
4
AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6
IBD candidates 28935 28975 22466 3528 3436 3452
DAQ live time (days) 49.5530 49.4971 48.9473
Muon veto time (days) 8.7418 8.9109 7.0389 0.8785 0.8800 0.8952
m 0.8019 0.7989 0.8363 0.9547 0.9543 0.9538
Accidentals (per day) 9.820.06 9.880.06 7.670.05 3.29 0.03 3.33 0.03 3.12 0.03
Fast-neutron (per day) 0.840.28 0.840.28 0.740.44 0.040.04 0.040.04 0.040.04
9
Li/
8
He (per AD per day) 3.11.6 1.81.1 0.160.11
Am-C correlated (per AD per day) 0.20.2
13
C(, n)
16
O background (per day) 0.040.02 0.040.02 0.0350.02 0.030.02 0.030.02 0.030.02
IBD rate (per day) 714.174.58 717.86 4.60 532.293.82 71.78 1.29 69.801.28 70.391.28
TABLE II. Signal and background summary. The background and IBD rates were corrected for the m efciency.
tal correlation of two unrelated signals, -n decay of
9
Li/
8
He
produced by muons in the ADs, fast-neutron backgrounds
produced by muons outside the ADs,
13
C(,n)
16
O interac-
tions, and correlated events due to the retracted Am-C neutron
source in the ACUs. The estimated background rates per AD
are summarized in Table II.
The accidental background was determined by measuring
the rate of both prompt- and delayed-like signals, and then
estimating the probability that two signals randomly satised
the t required for IBD selection. Additional estimates using
prompt and delayed candidates separated by more than 1 ms
or 2 meters provided consistent results. The uncertainty in
the measured accidental rate was dominated by the statistical
uncertainty in the rate of delayed candidates.
The rate of correlated background from the -n cascade of
9
Li/
8
He decays was evaluated fromthe distribution of the time
since the last muon using the known decay times for these iso-
topes [12]. The
9
Li/
8
He background rate as a function of the
muon energy deposited in the AD was estimated by preparing
samples with and without detected neutrons 10 s to 200 s
after the muon. A 50% systematic uncertainty was assigned to
account for the extrapolation to zero deposited muon energy.
An energetic neutron entering an AD can form a fast-
neutron background by recoiling off a proton before being
captured on Gd. By relaxing the E
p
< 12 MeV criterion in
the IBD selection, a at distribution in E
p
was observed up to
100 MeV. Extrapolation into the IBD energy region gave an
estimate for the residual fast-neutron background. A similar
at E
p
distribution was found in the muon-tagged fast-neutron
sample produced by inverting the muon veto cut. Consistent
results were obtained by scaling the muon-tagged fast-neutron
rate with muon inefciency, and by MC.
The
13
C(,n)
16
O background was determined using MC
after estimating the amount of
238
U,
232
Th,
227
Ac, and
210
Po
in the Gd-LS from their cascade decays, or by tting their -
particle energy peaks in the data.
A neutron emitted from the 0.5-Hz Am-C neutron source in
an ACUcould generate a gamma-ray via inelastic scattering in
the SSV before subsequently being captured on Fe/Cr/Mn/Ni.
An IBD was mimicked if both gamma-rays from the scat-
tering and capture processes entered the scintillating region.
This correlated background was estimated using MC. The
normalization was constrained by the measured rate of single
delayed-like candidates from this source.
Table III is a summary of the absolute efciencies and the
systematic uncertainties. The uncertainties of the absolute
efciencies are correlated among the ADs. No relative ef-
ciency, except

m
, was corrected. All differences between
the functionally identical ADs were taken as uncorrelated un-
certainties.
The spill-in enhancement resulted when neutrons fromIBD
outside the target drift into the target, and was evaluated using
MC. The opposite spill-out effect was included in the abso-
lute Gd capture ratio, which was determined using the spalla-
tion and Am-C neutrons from data and MC. Efciencies as-
sociated with the delayed-energy, the prompt-energy, and the
capture-time cuts were evaluated with MC. Discussion of the
uncertainties in the number of target protons, live time, and
the efciency of the asher cut can be found in Ref. [8].
Uncorrelated relative uncertainties have been addressed
in detail by performing a side-by-side comparison of two
ADs [8]. The IBD nGd energy peaks for all six ADs were
reconstructed to 8.05 0.04 MeV. The relative energy scale
between ADs was established by comparing the nGd peaks
of the IBD- and spallation-neutrons, and alpha-particles in
the Gd-LS. Both energy-reconstruction approaches yielded
a 0.5% uncorrelated energy-scale uncertainty for all six ADs.
The relative uncertainty in efciency due to the E
d
cut was
determined to be 0.12% using data. By measuring the differ-
ence in the neutron capture time of each AD, from which the
Gd-concentration can be calculated, the relative uncertainty in
the fraction of neutrons captured on Gd (the Gd capture ratio)
was found to be <0.1%. All other relative uncertainties were
O(0.01%) and the combined uncertainty was 0.2%. Indepen-
dent analyses obtained similar results on the background and
relative uncertainties.
This analysis was independent of reactor ux models. The

e
yield per ssion [13] was not xed when determining
sin
2
2
13
. Whether we used the conventional ILL uxes [14
17] (2.7% uncertainty) or the recently calculated uxes [18,
5
Detector
Efciency Correlated Uncorrelated
Target Protons 0.47% 0.03%
Flasher cut 99.98% 0.01% 0.01%
Delayed energy cut 90.9% 0.6% 0.12%
Prompt energy cut 99.88% 0.10% 0.01%
Multiplicity cut 0.02% <0.01%
Capture time cut 98.6% 0.12% 0.01%
Gd capture ratio 83.8% 0.8% <0.1%
Spill-in 105.0% 1.5% 0.02%
Livetime 100.0% 0.002% <0.01%
Combined 78.8% 1.9% 0.2%
Reactor
Correlated Uncorrelated
Energy/ssion 0.2% Power 0.5%
IBD reaction/ssion 3% Fission fraction 0.6%
Spent fuel 0.3%
Combined 3% Combined 0.8%
TABLE III. Summary of absolute efciencies, and correlated and
uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.
19] (3.1% uncertainty) had little impact on the results. The
thermal energy released per ssion is given in Ref. [20]. Non-
equilibrium corrections for long-lived isotopes were applied
following Ref. [18]. Contributions from spent fuel [21, 22]
(0.3%) were included as an uncertainty.
Thermal-power data provided by the power plant carry an
uncorrelated uncertainty of 0.5% per core [2325]. The s-
sion fractions were also provided for each fuel cycle as a func-
tion of burn-up, with a 5%uncertainty fromvalidation of the
simulation [26, 27]. A DRAGON [28] model was constructed
to study the correlation among the ssion rates of isotopes.
The uncertainties of the ssion fraction simulation resulted
in a 0.6% uncorrelated uncertainty of the
e
yield per core.
The baselines have been surveyed with GPS and Total Sta-
tion to a precision of 28 mm. The uncertainties in the base-
line and the spatial distribution of the ssion fractions in the
core had a negligible effect to the results. Fig. 3 presents the
background-subtracted and efciency-corrected IBD rates in
the three EHs. Relative reactor ux predictions are shown for
comparison.
The
e
rate in the far hall was predicted with a weighted
combination of the two near hall measurements assuming no
oscillation. The weights were determined by the thermal
power of each reactor and its baseline to each AD. We ob-
served a decit in the far hall, expressed as a ratio of observed
to expected events,
R = 0.940 0.011(stat) 0.004(syst) .
In addition, the residual reactor-related uncertainties were
found to be 5% of the uncorrelated uncertainty of a single
core.
Sep28 Oct28 Nov27 Dec27 Jan26
I
B
D

r
a
t
e

(
/
d
a
y
)
400
600
800
EH1
D2 off
D2 on
I
B
D

r
a
t
e

(
/
d
a
y
)
400
500
600
700
EH2
L3 on
L2 off L2 on
L1 off
L1 on
Run time
Sep 28 Oct 28 Nov 27 Dec 27 Jan 26
I
B
D

r
a
t
e

(
/
d
a
y
)
40
60
80
EH3
Predicted
Measured
FIG. 3. Daily average measured IBD rates per AD in the three ex-
perimental halls as a function of time. Data between the two vertical
dashed lines were used in this analysis. The black curves represent
no-oscillation predictions based on reactor ux analyses and detector
simulation for comparison. The predictions have been corrected with
the best-t normalization parameter in determining sin
2
213.
The value of sin
2
2
13
was determined with a
2
con-
structed with pull terms accounting for the correlation of the
systematic errors [29],

2
=
6

d=1
_
M
d
T
d
_
1 + +

r

d
r

r
+
d
_
+
d

2
M
d
+

2
r

2
r
+
6

d=1
_

2
d

2
d
+

2
d

2
B
_
, (2)
where M
d
are the measured IBD events of the d-th AD with
backgrounds subtracted, T
d
is the prediction from neutrino
ux, MC, and neutrino oscillations [30],
d
r
is the fraction
of IBD contribution of the r-th reactor to the d-th AD deter-
mined by baselines and reactor uxes. The uncertainties are
listed in Table III. The uncorrelated reactor uncertainty is
r
(0.8%),
d
(0.2%) is the uncorrelated detection uncertainty,
and
B
is the background uncertainty listed in Table II. The
corresponding pull parameters are (
r
,
d
,
d
). The detector-
and reactor-related correlated uncertainties were not included
in the analysis; the absolute normalization was determined
from the t to the data. The best-t value is
sin
2
2
13
= 0.092 0.016(stat) 0.005(syst)
with a
2
/NDF of 4.26/4. The no-oscillation hypothesis is
excluded at 5.2 standard deviations.
The accidental backgrounds were uncorrelated while the
Am-C and (alpha,n) backgrounds were correlated among
6
ADs. The fast-neutron and
9
Li/
8
He backgrounds were site-
wide correlated. In the worst case where they were correlated
in the same hall and uncorrelated among different halls, we
found the best-t value unchanged while the systematic un-
certainty increased by 0.001.
Fig. 4 shows the measured numbers of events in each de-
tector, relative to those expected assuming no oscillation. The
6.0% rate decit is obvious for EH3 in comparison with the
other EHs, providing clear evidence of a non-zero
13
. The
oscillation survival probability at the best-t values is given
by the smooth curve. The
2
versus sin
2
2
13
is shown in the
inset.
Weighted Baseline [km]
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

/

N
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
N
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
EH1 EH2
EH3
13
2
2
sin
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
2

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1
3
5
FIG. 4. Ratio of measured versus expected signal in each detector,
assuming no oscillation. The expected signal is corrected with the
best-t normalization parameter. Reactor and survey data were used
to compute the ux-weighted average baselines. The oscillation sur-
vival probability at the best-t value is given by the smooth curve.
The AD4 and AD6 data points are displaced by -30 and +30 m for
visual clarity. The
2
versus sin
2
213 is shown in the inset.
The observed
e
spectrum in the far hall is compared to
a prediction based on the near hall measurements in Fig. 5.
The disagreement of the spectra provides further evidence of
neutrino oscillation. The ratio of the spectra is consistent with
the best-t oscillation solution of sin
2
2
13
= 0.092 obtained
from the rate-only analysis [31].
In summary, with a 43,000 ton-GW
th
-day livetime expo-
sure, 10,416 reactor antineutrinos were observed at the far
hall. Comparing with the prediction based on the near-hall
measurements, a decit of 6.0% was found. A rate-only anal-
ysis yielded sin
2
2
13
= 0.092 0.016(stat) 0.005(syst).
The neutrino mixing angle
13
is non-zero with a signicance
of 5.2 standard deviations.
The Daya Bay experiment is supported in part by the Min-
istry of Science and Technology of China, the United States
Department of Energy, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the
National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guang-
dong provincial government, the Shenzhen municipal govern-
ment, the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, Shanghai
E
n
t
r
i
e
s

/

0
.
2
5
M
e
V
0
200
400
600
800 Far hall
Near halls (weighted)
Prompt energy (MeV)
0 5 10
F
a
r

/

N
e
a
r

(
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
)
0.8
1
1.2
No oscillation
Best Fit
FIG. 5. Top: Measured prompt energy spectrum of the far hall (sum
of three ADs) compared with the no-oscillation prediction from the
measurements of the two near halls. Spectra were background sub-
tracted. Uncertainties are statistical only. Bottom: The ratio of mea-
sured and predicted no-oscillation spectra. The red curve is the best-
t solution with sin
2
213 = 0.092 obtained from the rate-only anal-
ysis. The dashed line is the no-oscillation prediction.
Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, the Research
Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Re-
gion of China, University Development Fund of The Univer-
sity of Hong Kong, the MOE program for Research of Ex-
cellence at National Taiwan University, National Chiao-Tung
University, and NSC fund support from Taiwan, the U.S. Na-
tional Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Repub-
lic, the Czech Science Foundation, and the Joint Institute of
Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia. We thank Yellow River
Engineering Consulting Co., Ltd. and China railway 15th Bu-
reau Group Co., Ltd. for building the underground laboratory.
We are grateful for the ongoing cooperation from the China
Guangdong Nuclear Power Group and China Light & Power
Company.

Deceased.
[1] B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP 6, 429 (1957) and 26, 984
(1968).
[2] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28,
870 (1962).
[3] M. Apollonio et al. (CHOOZ Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B466,
415 (1999); Eur. Phys. J. C27, 331 (2003).
[4] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801
(2011).
[5] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,
7
181802 (2011).
[6] Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz Collaboration), arXiv:1112.6353
(2012).
[7] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,
181801 (2011).
[8] F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), arXiv:1202.6181
(2012).
[9] X. H. Guo et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), Proposal of the
Daya Bay experiment, arXiv:hep-ex/0701029 (2007).
[10] Y. Y. Ding et al., Journal of Rare Earths 25, 310 (2007);
Y. Y. Ding et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A584, 238 (2008).
[11] M. Yeh et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A578, 329 (2007).
[12] L. J. Wen et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A564, 471 (2006).
[13] Y. Declais et al., Phys. Lett. B338, 383 (1994).
[14] W. G. K. Schreckenbach, G. Colvin and F. von Feilitzsch, Phys.
Lett. B160, 325 (1985).
[15] A. F. vonFeilitzsch and K. Schreckenbach, Phys. Lett. B118,
162 (1982).
[16] A. A. Hahn et al., Phys. Lett. B218, 365 (1989).
[17] P. Vogel et al., Phys. Rev. C24, 1543 (1981).
[18] T. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. C83, 054615 (2011).
[19] P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C84, 024617 (2011) [Erratum-ibid. 85,
029901(E) (2012)].
[20] V. Kopeikin, L. Mikaelyan, and V. Sinev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67,
1892 (2004).
[21] F. P. An et al., Chin. Phys. C33, 711 (2009).
[22] B. Zhou et al., Chin. Phys. C36, 1 (2012).
[23] J. Cao, proceeding of Neutrino 2010, to appear in Nucl. Phys.
B Proc. Supp. [arXiv:1101.2266] (2011).
[24] S. F. E. Tournu et al., EPRI 2001.1001470, Palo Alto, CA
(2001).
[25] C. Xu et al., Chin. J. Nucl. Sci. and Eng. 23, 26 (2003).
[26] S. Rauck, SCIENCE V2 nuclear code package - qualication
report (Rev A), Framatome ANP Document NFPSD/DC/89, 14
(2004).
[27] R. Sanchez et al., Nucl. Eng. Tech. 42, 474 (2010).
[28] R. R. G. Marleau, A. Hebert, and R. Roy, A User Guide for
DRAGON, Report IGE-236 Rev. 1 (2001).
[29] D. Stump et al., Phys. Rev. D65, 014012 (Appendix B) (2001).
[30] The survival probability used in the
2
was
Psur = 1 sin
2
213 sin
2
(1.267m
2
31
L/E)
cos
4
13 sin
2
212 sin
2
(1.267m
2
21
L/E) where,
m
2
31
= 2.32 10
3
eV
2
, sin
2
212 = 0.861
+0.026
0.022
, and
m
2
21
= 7.59
+0.20
0.21
10
5
eV
2
.
[31] Without correcting for the non-linearity of the detector re-
sponse, we have performed a preliminary shape analysis that
yielded a consistent result for sin
2
213.